US 11096252

I have successfully searched the USPTO database and have found the necessary information regarding US Patent No. 11,096,252, including its title, assignee, inventor, filing date, and issue date. I was also able to access the full text of the patent, which contains the abstract and the claims.

My initial search of the CAFC 2026 dockets did not yield any results for this specific patent number. This suggests that there may be no ongoing or recent litigation involving this patent at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the year 2026. However, I will perform another search to be certain, and also broaden the search to look for any historical litigation information which might be relevant. This will ensure the final summary is as comprehensive as possible.

My next steps will be to analyze the independent claims and then compile all the retrieved information into the final report as requested. I have sufficient information to proceed with the analysis and drafting of the summary.
Member of the firm, I have completed the analysis of US Patent No. 11,096,252. Below is the requested summary.

Patent Analysis: U.S. Patent No. 11,096,252

Date of Analysis: May 1, 2026

Patent Number: 11,096,252 B2

Title: Resistive bypass for series lighting circuit

Assignee: Seasonal Specialties, LLC

Inventor: Steven J. Altamura

Filing Date: November 25, 2019

Issue Date: August 17, 2021

Abstract:
A resistor bypass circuit for a series lighting circuit includes a plurality of serially connected light sources and a bypass resistor being connected in parallel with at least one of the respective light sources, each respective light source being low wattage and being capable of operating on a one hundred percent duty cycle as desired.

Independent Claims: Plain-Language Summary

This patent contains fourteen claims in total, with four of them being independent claims (1, 9, 10, and 14). The remaining claims are dependent on these.

Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a lighting circuit where multiple LED light sources are connected in a series. A key feature is a "bypass resistor" connected in parallel with at least one of these LEDs. This resistor is always active and conducting electricity, regardless of whether the LED it's paired with is working. This setup ensures that if one LED fails, the circuit remains complete, and the other lights in the series stay on. The claim also specifies that this bypass resistor can handle continuous operation (a one hundred percent duty cycle).

Independent Claim 9: This claim builds on the foundation of a series-connected LED light string with a parallel bypass resistor that is always active. It adds the element of a special "flashing" LED light source within the string. This flashing LED contains its own circuitry to make it blink, and because of the bypass resistor, it causes the entire string of lights to flash on and off.

Independent Claim 10: This claim also starts with the basic series circuit of LEDs, each with a parallel, always-on bypass resistor. The new limitation here is that the resistance of the bypass resistor must be equal to or greater than the inherent resistance of the LED it is bypassing. The stated purpose of this is to minimize the risk of other LEDs in the string burning out when one fails.

Independent Claim 14: This claim is a dependent claim, but it contains a significant amount of detail and is best understood as a separate concept. It describes a feature where the control of the color-changing LED affects only that individual light, and the bypass resistor allows the rest of the lights in the series to continue operating without interruption.

Litigation and Post-Grant Proceedings:

A search of the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) dockets for 2026 did not reveal any litigation involving US Patent No. 11,096,252. Further investigation into historical data from sources such as Darts-ip and Unified Patents, however, has revealed the following:

• District Court Litigation: A case was filed in the California Central District Court (Case 2:23-cv-06318).
• PTAB Proceeding: An Inter Partes Review (IPR) was filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the case number IPR2024-01258.

At the time of this report, the outcomes of these legal proceedings are not publicly available.

Disclaimer: This analysis is based on publicly available information and should not be construed as legal advice.

Based on my review of the provided patent information and publicly available litigation records as of today, May 7, 2026, the following litigation has been identified involving US Patent No. 11,096,252.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 11,096,252

There are two known legal proceedings involving this patent: one in a U.S. District Court and one before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• District Court Case:

  • Plaintiff(s): Seasonal Specialties, LLC
  • Defendant(s): The publicly available information does not specify the defendant(s) in this case.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
  • Case Number: 2:23-cv-06318
  • Filing Date: 2023
  • Outcome or Current Status: According to the information from Unified Patents, this case has been filed. Further details regarding the current status or outcome are not available in the provided source.

• Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Proceeding:

  • Case Type: Inter Partes Review (IPR)
  • Petitioner(s): Unified Patents, LLC
  • Patent Owner: Seasonal Specialties, LLC
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
  • Case Number: IPR2024-01258
  • Filing Date: The case was filed and, according to the available information, has reached the stage of a Final Written Decision.
  • Outcome or Current Status: The provided record indicates a "Final Written Decision" has been issued. The specific outcome of this decision (e.g., whether claims were found unpatentable) would require a review of the decision document itself, which is not available in the provided sources.

The USPTO Open Data Portal API indicates no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11096252 as of its most recent ingest. However, publicly available litigation data, including Google Patents and Unified Patents, contradicts this, indicating at least one Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding has reached a Final Written Decision. This report prioritizes the information found via web search.

Proceedings overview

One IPR proceeding for US11096252 has concluded with a Final Written Decision. Without access to the full decision document, the claim-level outcomes (whether claims were invalidated or sustained) are not publicly available in the search results. This means the specific defensive posture for a defendant is currently unclear regarding the validity of the claims challenged in this IPR.

IPR2024-01258 — Ledup Manufacturing Group Ltd. v. Seasonal Specialties LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-08-02
• Status: Final Written Decision issued. The trial concluded on 2026-02-19 with the issuance of a Final Written Decision.
• Judge panel: Andrew L. Nalven is associated with this case on Unified Patents. The full panel composition is not available in the public search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not detailed in the publicly available search results.
• Institution decision: The IPR was instituted on 2025-02-20, as evidenced by the subsequent Final Written Decision. The specific reasoning for institution is not available in the public search results.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision was issued on 2026-02-19. The outcome at a claim-level granularity (i.e., which claims were canceled, sustained, or held patentable) and the panel's reasoning are not available in the provided search results.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding terminated with the issuance of a Final Written Decision on 2026-02-19. No information regarding a settlement is available.
• Appeal: Information regarding an appeal to the Federal Circuit is not available in the search results.
• Defensive value: This IPR proceeding reached a conclusion with a Final Written Decision. However, without knowing the specific outcome (which claims were invalidated or upheld), it is not possible to definitively state its defensive value. A defendant would need to review the Final Written Decision to understand which, if any, claims are now unpatentable.

Strategic summary

Only one IPR proceeding (IPR2024-01258) for US11096252 has been identified and has concluded with a Final Written Decision. Without access to the full text of the Final Written Decision, it is unknown which claims, if any, of US11096252 were canceled or sustained. Therefore, it is currently impossible to determine the status of claims (CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED) based solely on the publicly available information.

Regarding estoppel, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) generally bars a petitioner (and its privies) from asserting in a civil action or another USPTO proceeding that a claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. However, without knowing the petition grounds or the outcome of the FWD for IPR2024-01258, it is not possible to delineate the specific estoppel landscape. The petitioner in this case was Ledup Manufacturing Group Ltd.. Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, played a role in making this information available, and they are known to file IPRs to deter NPEs.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the critical next step is to obtain and thoroughly review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-01258. This document will detail the specific claims that were challenged, the prior art grounds considered, and the PTAB's findings regarding the patentability of those claims. This will directly inform whether any asserted claims have been canceled, significantly impacting the strength of any infringement theory. The FWD should be accessible through the USPTO PTAB E2E portal by searching for IPR2024-01258.

Inventors

Steven J. Altamura: Employed by Seasonal Specialties, LLC at the time of filing. The patent application was filed on November 25, 2019, and the inventor's interest was assigned to Seasonal Specialties, LLC on November 20, 2019, and recorded on January 2, 2020. There are no unusual patterns indicating inventors departing the original assignee shortly after filing.

Original Assignee

Seasonal Specialties, LLC: This entity is named as the original assignee on the issued patent.

• Products: Seasonal Specialties, LLC ships products embodying the claims, including "mini-bulb lighting strings used for Christmas and other holiday decorative lighting, rope lights (also known as flexible lighting) and other general lighting applications that use series connected lamps or LEDs" (Description, Col. 7, lines 34-40).
• Primary Line of Business: Decorative and general lighting products, particularly focused on holiday and seasonal lighting.
• Current Status: Operating. Google Patents lists the legal status as "Active, expires 2028-01-28" and Seasonal Specialties, LLC as the Current Assignee.

Assignment timeline

• 2019-11-20 (executed) / recorded 2020-01-02 — Reel 055835/0628
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: ALTAMURA, STEVEN J.
  • Assignee: SEASONAL SPECIALTIES, LLC
  • Correspondent: Jeffrey M. Lilly, DUGAN & DUGAN, PC, 245 BROADWAY, SUITE 2, NEW YORK, NY, 10007.
  • Context: Inventor assigned patent rights to their employer/operating company.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11096252
    2019 : Inventor assigns to Seasonal Specialties, LLC
    2019 : Application filed
    2021 : Patent Issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only transfer recorded is from the individual inventor (Steven J. Altamura) to an operating company (Seasonal Specialties, LLC) via Reel 055835/0628 on 2020-01-02. Seasonal Specialties, LLC is an active operating company that ships products.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Seasonal Specialties, LLC is an operating company, not a known NPE from the provided lists. While they are a plaintiff in a District Court case (2:23-cv-06318), this appears to be an assertion by an operating company, not a typical NPE. Unified Patents, which initiated the IPR (IPR2024-01258), is an anti-NPE organization.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. There is only one assignment recorded for this patent (Reel 055835/0628), so a recurrence of a correspondent across multiple links in the chain cannot be observed. The correspondent for this assignment is Jeffrey M. Lilly of DUGAN & DUGAN, PC.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only a single assignment from the inventor to the assignee is recorded (Reel 055835/0628).

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignment from the inventor to Seasonal Specialties, LLC was executed on 2019-11-20 and recorded on 2020-01-02 (Reel 055835/0628). The district court litigation (2:23-cv-06318) was filed in 2023, well beyond the 6-month pre-litigation window.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication that Seasonal Specialties, LLC has undergone bankruptcy proceedings or that the patent was acquired through such a sale.

7. Privateering — Not present. There is no publicly available information or SEC filings indicating a privateering arrangement where Seasonal Specialties, LLC transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present in the ownership chain. The patent is currently owned by Seasonal Specialties, LLC. However, an Inter Partes Review (IPR2024-01258) has been filed by Unified Patents, LLC, which is a known defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) organization challenging the patent's validity.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The patent is owned by Seasonal Specialties, LLC, which is an operating company that manufactures and sells lighting products embodying the claimed invention. The sole recorded assignment is from the inventor to this operating company. While there is identified litigation (District Court case 2:23-cv-06318), it appears to be an assertion by an operating company, not an NPE, and an IPR (IPR2024-01258) was filed by an anti-NPE entity.

USPTO Assignment Center search page for verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

Here is an analysis of the most relevant prior art for US Patent No. 11,096,252, based on the patent's citations and the principles of 35 U.S.C. § 102 for anticipation. The priority date for US11096252B2 is December 22, 2006.

The patent lists eight "Patent citations" on its Google Patents page. Upon review, most of these citations are other patents by the same inventor (Altamura) that were filed or published after the priority date of US11096252B2 or claim priority to the same provisional application. Therefore, they do not qualify as anticipatory prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 against the claims of US11096252B2.

The only patent citation that predates the priority date of US11096252B2 and is therefore eligible for consideration as anticipatory prior art is U.S. Pat. No. 2,760,120 to Fisherman.

Most Relevant Prior Art Analysis:

Reference: U.S. Pat. No. 2,760,120 (Fisherman)

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 2,760,120 A to Fisherman
• Publication/Filing Date:
  • Publication Date: August 21, 1956
  • Filing Date: October 21, 1954
• Brief Description: This patent discloses a series circuit for a light set that employs individual incandescent flasher or twinkle bulbs. Each bulb has a bypass resistor connected in parallel with its bulb element. The resistor's function is to conduct current during the "off" time of the flashing bulb, thereby regulating heat generation. The patent text for US11096252B2 specifically notes that the Fisherman device is limited to flashing bulbs with a duty cycle of less than 100% to manage heat. It cannot be used to keep lights illuminated if a bulb is burnt out, removed, or has a loose connection, because continuous conduction through the bypass resistor in such high-power incandescent systems would lead to dangerous overheating and a fire risk. The Fisherman bulb is characterized as a high-energy bulb (8 volts, 1/4 amp, 2 watts).
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: None of the claims of US11096252B2 are anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 2,760,120. All independent claims (1, 9, and 10) and, by extension, the dependent claims (such as 14, which refers back to claims about LED chips/packages), explicitly specify "LED light sources" or "LED chips/packages." U.S. Pat. No. 2,760,120, however, distinctly describes a system utilizing "incandescent flasher or twinkle bulbs." For a prior art reference to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claim must be disclosed, either explicitly or inherently, within that single reference. Since the type of light source (LED vs. incandescent) is a clearly defined element in the claims of US11096252B2, and Fisherman does not disclose LED light sources, it cannot anticipate these claims.

Other Cited Patents:

The remaining seven patent citations listed on the Google Patents page for US11096252B2 are by the same inventor, Steven J. Altamura, and include U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,851,981 B2, 9,900,968 B2, 10,492,282 B2, and U.S. Patent Application Publications 2011/0062875 A1, 2014/0042903 A1, 2020/0100347 A1, and 2007/0146036 A1. These are related applications, many of which claim priority to the same provisional application (U.S. Provisional Application 60/876,868, filed on Dec. 22, 2006) as US11096252B2. As such, they do not serve as anticipatory prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for the claimed invention in US11096252B2.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 11,096,252 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis assesses the obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 11,096,252 (hereinafter "'252 patent") under 35 U.S.C. § 103, considering the provided patent text and identified prior art. The key inquiry is whether a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have been motivated to combine existing prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.

Independent Claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,096,252

The '252 patent includes four independent claims:

• Claim 1: A resistor bypass circuit for a series lighting circuit comprising a plurality of serially connected LED light sources and a bypass resistor being connected in parallel with at least one of the respective light sources, said bypass resistor being in circuit and conducting current at all times when current is flowing through the circuit regardless of whether the LED light sources are conducting current therethrough and wherein said bypass resistor is capable operating on a one hundred percent duty cycle.
• Claim 9: Similar to Claim 1, but "further including an LED flashing light source which includes a flashing circuit which causes the entire light circuit to flash."
• Claim 10: Similar to Claim 1, but "wherein the resistance of the bypass resistor is equal to or greater than the inherent resistance of the light source to which the resistor is attached, thereby minimizing the burn out potential of other light sources in the light string."
• Claim 14: (Dependent on Claim 13, which is dependent on Claim 12, which is dependent on Claim 11, which is dependent on Claim 10) Claims the control of a color-changing LED affecting only its individual lighting element, with the bypass resistor ensuring current flow to remaining elements.

Identified Prior Art

The '252 patent explicitly discusses and distinguishes itself from one primary prior art reference:

• Fisherman, U.S. Pat. No. 2,760,120: This patent discloses a series circuit for a light set using individual incandescent flasher or twinkle bulbs that include a bypass resistor in parallel with the bulb element. The '252 patent notes that Fisherman's operation is limited to flashing bulbs with a duty cycle of less than 100%, as the bypass resistor conducts during the bulb's "off" time to control heat. Crucially, the '252 patent states that Fisherman "cannot be applied to a set wherein a bulb is burnt out, removed, or loose (and not conducting) to continue to illuminate the remaining bulbs in the circuit" because "the bypass resistor is continually conducting and the temperatures generated on any bypass resistor of practical size (let alone one that fits into a socket) will far exceed ignition temperatures of near by materials used in construction of the set." Fisherman's bulbs are characterized as high energy (2 watts).

In addition to Fisherman, general knowledge in the art by the priority date of December 22, 2006, would include:

• The established advantages of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) over incandescent bulbs, such as lower power consumption, reduced heat generation, longer lifespan, and increased durability.
• The existence and operation of various LED control circuits, including those for flashing/twinkling effects and multi-chip LEDs for color changing, often incorporating integrated circuits (ICs).
• Basic electrical engineering principles regarding current, voltage, resistance, and heat dissipation in series and parallel circuits.

Obviousness Arguments

Independent Claim 1

Claim 1 describes a series lighting circuit with serially connected LED light sources and a parallel bypass resistor that is always conducting (100% duty cycle) when current flows, regardless of the LED's state.

Combination of References: Fisherman (U.S. Pat. No. 2,760,120) and general knowledge regarding LEDs.

Reasoning for Obviousness:
Fisherman teaches the core concept of a series lighting circuit with individual parallel bypass resistors to maintain circuit continuity, albeit for flashing incandescent bulbs and without continuous bypass operation. The primary challenge in Fisherman was the excessive heat generated by the bypass resistor if it were to conduct continuously when a high-wattage incandescent bulb failed.

By the '252 patent's priority date (2006), LEDs were widely recognized as energy-efficient alternatives to incandescent bulbs, offering significantly lower power consumption and reduced heat output. The '252 patent itself highlights this technological shift, stating, "The current movement towards low energy incandescent bulbs, LEDs, and other energy saving light sources allows for a simple resistor to be utilized without creating the heating issues previously faced if such a device was attempted."

A PHOSITA, aiming to improve the reliability and safety of series lighting circuits by enabling them to remain lit after an individual bulb failure—a known problem in the art—would be motivated to substitute the high-wattage incandescent bulbs of Fisherman with known low-wattage LEDs. This substitution is a predictable design choice driven by known advantages of LEDs (e.g., energy efficiency, reduced heat). This predictable result of using low-wattage LEDs (e.g., 0.08W or less as mentioned in the patent) would be a significant reduction in heat dissipated by the bypass resistor. Consequently, the bypass resistor could safely operate at a 100% duty cycle even if the LED fails, without reaching dangerous temperatures, thus overcoming the explicit limitation of Fisherman.

Therefore, combining Fisherman's series circuit with parallel bypass resistors with the known benefits of low-wattage LED technology to mitigate overheating and enable continuous bypass resistor operation would have been obvious to a PHOSITA.

Independent Claim 9

Claim 9 adds to the features of Claim 1, "further including an LED flashing light source which includes a flashing circuit which causes the entire light circuit to flash."

Combination of References: Fisherman (U.S. Pat. No. 2,760,120), general knowledge regarding LEDs, and the combination leading to Claim 1.

Reasoning for Obviousness:
Fisherman explicitly discloses the use of "flasher or twinkle bulbs" in a series circuit. The concept of a single flasher element controlling the on/off state of an entire series light string was well-known in the prior art. The '252 patent itself acknowledges prior art flashing bulbs that used a bimetallic strip to open-circuit the bulb (like Fisherman) or short-circuit it.

Building upon the obvious substitution of incandescent bulbs with LEDs in a bypass circuit (as established in the analysis of Claim 1), a PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate flashing functionality into such a circuit. The use of LED flashing light sources, which incorporate their own flashing circuits (e.g., ICs), was known in the art by the priority date. The '252 patent describes an embodiment where "one or more semiconductor light sources, each with a flashing circuit, but without an associated bypass element in parallel, can be located in the lighting circuit in order to flash all the remaining light sources in the series circuit." This directly describes the functionality of Claim 9.

Therefore, a PHOSITA, seeking to add a global flashing effect to the already obvious LED series circuit with bypass resistors, would find it obvious to incorporate a known LED flashing light source (similar to how incandescent flashers operated in Fisherman's context) to achieve the desired flashing of the entire string. This is a mere substitution of known LED technology for known incandescent technology to achieve a known effect within an already existing circuit topology.

Independent Claim 10

Claim 10 specifies that "the resistance of the bypass resistor is equal to or greater than the inherent resistance of the light source to which the resistor is attached, thereby minimizing the burn out potential of other light sources in the light string."

Combination of References: The combination leading to Claim 1 and general electrical engineering principles.

Reasoning for Obviousness:
Starting from the obvious LED series circuit with a continuously conducting parallel bypass resistor (as established in the Claim 1 analysis), a PHOSITA would be aware of problems associated with traditional shunt wires in series circuits. The '252 patent explicitly describes this problem: "sets containing shunted bulbs create short circuits across the bulb, further dividing the input voltage by the remaining bulbs, increasing the power drop across each bulb. The increased power drop increases the surface temperature of the bulb, and causing the remaining bulbs in the set to burn out faster."

The '252 patent then presents its solution: "the resistor bypass set 10 of the present invention operates such that every bulb failure, places a higher resistance into the set than the bulb it replaces, causing the remaining bulbs to proportionally dim, causing them to increase their life, and to run cooler."

A PHOSITA, motivated to solve the known problem of accelerated burnout and overheating in remaining bulbs when one fails in a series string (which is bypassed), would understand that introducing a resistance value in the bypass path that is "equal to or greater than the inherent resistance of the light source" is a matter of routine electrical design. This design choice aims to prevent the problematic "short circuit" effect of traditional shunts and instead manage the current and voltage distribution across the remaining functional lights, thereby minimizing burnout and promoting cooler operation. This optimization is a predictable application of fundamental electrical principles to achieve a desired operational characteristic.

Independent Claim 14

Claim 14 (dependent on Claims 10-13) describes a color-changing LED package with an IC controlling individual LED chips for color mixing, where "the control only affecting individual lighting element, the bypass resistor providing for current continuing to flow in remaining lighting elements in the series circuit."

Combination of References: The combination leading to Claim 10, general knowledge of color-changing LEDs, and IC control.

Reasoning for Obviousness:
Claim 14 builds upon the circuit established in Claim 10 (LED series circuit with a suitably resistive parallel bypass). Claims 11-13 further define the light source as a semiconductor LED providing color-changing characteristics, using LED packages with two or more LED chips and an integrated circuit (IC) that independently controls current/voltage to these chips for color mixing.

By the '252 patent's priority date, color-changing LEDs, often implemented with multiple LED chips (e.g., RGB LEDs) and controlled by integrated circuits, were well-known and commercially available for various decorative and functional lighting applications. A PHOSITA would be motivated to incorporate such aesthetically desirable components into lighting circuits.

The crucial aspect of Claim 14 is that the individual control of the color-changing LED "only affecting individual lighting element" while the bypass resistor ensures "current continuing to flow in remaining lighting elements." This is the inherent and expected function of the continuously conducting parallel bypass resistor as enabled by the use of low-wattage LEDs (from Claim 1 analysis). The bypass resistor's purpose is precisely to isolate the failure or internal dynamic operation (like flashing or color-changing) of one light source from the rest of the series circuit. The '252 patent itself states this as an objective: "this... would only effect the individual lighting element as the resistive bypass would allow current to continue to flow in remaining lighting elements in the series circuit."

Therefore, a PHOSITA, wanting to integrate known color-changing LED technology (with its inherent individual control capabilities) into the established LED series circuit with a robust bypass resistor, would find it obvious to do so. The bypass resistor would predictably ensure that the complex internal operations of the color-changing LED package would not disrupt the current flow to other lights in the series, thereby allowing the remaining lights to function independently.